your posts

AN OPEN LETTER TO TATE

By M.A.L , 18 May 2010

AN OPEN LETTER TO TATE

TATE: NO SOUL FOR SALE // ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM // FAIR PAY FOR ARTISTS

"We don't really cherish our artists to the degree we should."Sir Nicholas Serota, Director of Tate, quoted in the Evening Standard23.04.10

As a grouping of national and international artists, we publicly challengeNo Soul For Sale (NSFS) at Tate Modern over the weekend of 14th-16th May2010.

The title No Soul For Sale re-enforces deeply reductive stereotypes aboutthe artist and art production. With its romantic connotations of the soulfulartist, who makes art from inner necessity without thought of recompense, NoSoul For Sale implies that as artists we should expect to work for free andthat it is acceptable to forego the right to be paid for our labour.

It has come to our attention that many participants are not being paid byTate Modern for their efforts. In fact, most are self-funding theiractivities throughout the weekend. Tate describes this situation as a³spirit of reciprocal generosity between Tate and the contributors². But atwhat point does expected generosity become a form of institutionalexploitation? Once it becomes endemic within a large publicly funded artspace?

Reciprocal generosity is the lifeblood of independent art communitiesthroughout the world. This spirit is not however the property of any oneinstitution, artist or curator and it is complacent for Tate to believe thattheir position is comparable to ground level arts activity. It thereforeseems disingenuous for Tate to claim that their hosting of NSFS is somehowaltruistic or philanthropic. Tate publicly has the most to gain, yet we havediscovered that Tate¹s reciprocity does not even extend to the provision ofbasic resources, such as the use of chairs and tables for some of theparticipants in NSFS. Tate will commercially benefit from NSFS throughincreased audiences and the inevitable increase in the sale of books,magazines, merchandise, refreshments, donations and exhibition entry fees.Is the nature of this exchange really occurring on a level playing field? Isthe relationship as reciprocal as it could be?

As many of us in Making A Living have worked with Tate and other major artgalleries, we understand that the expectation of free labour and self-funding is not exclusive to NSFS. During our discussions it has come tolight that Tate has not paid artists for some exhibitions, workshops andevents, including last year¹s Tate Triennial, and that this policy hasexisted over a considerable period of time, long before the current economiccrisis became an issue for arts institutions.

We call for an end to this poor practice and manipulation of generosity asTate Modern celebrates its 10th birthday. We call on Tate to make public itspolicy in regard to artists¹ fees.

If artists continue to work for free, or are expected to pay for theirefforts when working with our major art institutions, then we denyopportunities to the great majority of artists who simply cannot afford totake such financial risks. Tate and other major publicly funded galleriesrisk spoiling their good work by unwittingly limiting their pool of futureexhibiting artists to individuals who can afford to pay for the privilege,or who are content or able to work for little or no pay. If NSFS manages tostart a productive conversation about this 'elephant in the room' then wethink it may yet be described as a success.

M.A.L(Making A Living: A discussion group of Arts professionals currently activeacross the UK)makingaliving@live.co.uk